• Gaddafi forces beat back rebels, besiege Misrata again
    49 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30411104]I am not saying that the ground is bounds more important than the struggle in the air, but we have overstated the abilities of air power in this day and age due to past experiences of it in Desert Storm, for example which can be regarded as a "curb-stomp beatup" than a "war". NATO jets are "nice to have", but if the rebels lose due to being defeated on the ground then all those air strikes will be for naught.[/QUOTE] nato jets are more than just "nice to have". they force gadhafi to fight a serious uphill struggle against the rebels, air superiority is just as important in most wars as ground superiority
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30411337]((p.s i was being sarcastic))[/QUOTE] Very well then.
Fuck where's NATO, they're supposed to bomb Gaddafi's artillery and tanks.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30378555]That's because it's a war. Look at any war and you'll find numerous battles won and lost by both sides.[/QUOTE] The ''shape'' of Libya pretty much adds up to this. It has a very narrow frontline, because Libya is basically only populated near the coastline so the battle always shifts over the same few coastline towns.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30411439]nato jets are more than just "nice to have". they force gadhafi to fight a serious uphill struggle against the rebels[/quote] What do you have to say about Gaddafi's beating back of the rebels, then? This shows that even under air supremacy, a solid ground component is required. [quote]air superiority is just as important in most wars as ground superiority[/QUOTE] Maybe for your American/Western-centric mindset, but there are more schools of thought than "air power over all". I believe that the below judgement is still very valid in a conventional theater conflict. [quote]As far as the Soviets are concerned, a standoff in the air war could be a satisfactory outcome. That would mean that neither side could bring its full weight of air power to bear on the ground battle for the crucial first week or so. That would be acceptable to the Soviets, as long as they had ground forces superiority in numbers and (in its perception) in the ability to conduct operational maneuver. In the final analysis, the most effective air superiority weapon is a tank sitting at the end of the enemy's runway, and that is the situation the Soviets would hope to reach as early in the war as possible. In fluid operations, the opportunities for deep raiding tactics would offer the ground forces an opportunity to make a major contribution for victory in the air.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30412962]What do you have to say about Gaddafi's beating back of the rebels, then? This shows that even under air supremacy, a solid ground component is required.[/QUOTE] of course a solid ground component is required, its a major part of the war, but i guarantee if gadhafi had air superiority right now without nato interference the war would not have gone on this long [quote]Maybe for your American-centric mindset, but there are more schools of thought than "air power over all". I believe that the below judgement is still very valid in a conventional theater conflict.[/quote]this is valid because, although not making it an objective to get air superiority, it is still an objective to not let the enemy get air superiority the soviets knew that air superiority won wars so if they could prevent the enemy from getting it then they would be able to push their own advantage(numbers, superior ground tactics, etc.), the soviets generally had a stronger ground force so if they got the air equation out of the way they could overpower most armies
[quote]the soviets knew that air superiority won wars so if they could prevent the enemy from getting it then they would be able to push their own advantage(numbers, superior ground tactics, etc.), the soviets generally had a stronger ground force so if they got the air equation out of the way they could overpower most armies[/QUOTE] Uh, no. The reason control of the air was critical was because 50% of NATO's firepower was concentrated in their aviation assets, and also NATO's dependence on air transport for both movement of reinforcements and resupply of critical items like missiles. Deny those and you have a fairly good chance of winning. Even if Soviet air forces were neutralized by NATO's, they would still have to penetrate a very, very formidable air defense system and deal with bad European weather. [quote]this is valid because, although not making it an objective to get air superiority, it is still an objective to not let the enemy get air superiority[/quote] That's a given in planning of a theater-strategic offensive, but the air war is not the top factor of success or failure.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30413279]Uh, no. The reason control of the air was critical was because 50% of NATO's firepower was concentrated in their aviation assets, and also NATO's dependence on air transport for both movement of reinforcements and resupply of critical items like missiles. Deny those and you have a fairly good chance of winning. Even if Soviet air forces were neutralized by NATO's, they would still have to penetrate a very, very formidable air defense system and deal with bad European weather.[/QUOTE] how does that contradict a thing i said? i said that the soviets focused on denying the enemy air superiority you said "uh no, the soviets focused on denying the enemy air superiority!"
We seem to be having a disconnect in communication here. Control of the air was crucial in [i]NATO's[/i] perception due to the factors I listed above. Since the Soviets recognized that NATO placed such emphasis on air power, it would seek to kill it. Soviet military art saw ground operations as the most important elements of a strategic operation. [editline]12th June 2011[/editline] [quote]of course a solid ground component is required, its a major part of the war, but i guarantee if gadhafi had air superiority right now without nato interference the war would not have gone on this long[/quote] Leading back to the thread topic at hand, even if the rebels managed to neutralize Gaddafi's jets with massed MANPADs or something else in an alternate timeline, the combat power of his ground forces would still have crushed the rebels air superiority or not.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30413448]We seem to be having a disconnect in communication here. Control of the air was crucial in [i]NATO's[/i] perception due to the factors I listed above. Since the Soviets recognized that NATO placed such emphasis on air power, it would seek to kill it. Soviet military art saw ground operations as the most important elements of a strategic operation.[/quote] and im saying that since nato was so focused on control of the air that it became even more important for the soviets to deny them that air control, to have air superiority over their own territory i think i might have misunderstood what you had said, i was thinking that you thought air superiority was trivial, or at least not nearly as important as it is
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30396063]No, I didn't. Because it isn't true.[/QUOTE] Except it is, unfortunately, at least as a side goal. There is no reason to even be in Iraq any more, and there hasn't been for eight years now. Where are the WMDs? There's a surplus of oil fields, though, as well as businesses conveniently taking advantage of this. On the topic of creating insurgencies, we wouldn't even still be getting shot at if we had already left the region. [QUOTE=Scar;30406963]I hope Gaddafi's troops rape you, like all the innocent women.[/QUOTE] There is no proof that any order was given.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;30384833]No, fuck no. Hell no. NATO(US) is already caught up with a decade long war in aghanistan, and a war in Iraq that didn't need to happen, the last thing we want is to put boots on the ground in libya and start another war, fuck up every standing modern structure in that country, and then have to pay to rebuild it all. War is expensive.[/QUOTE] NATO isn't just the US. Its mostly other countries. Do some research before you post.
To be honest, I always expected expected this to happen. The rebels are too unorganized and untrained to sustain a long term war with the Libyan army. The whole conflict is a mess, especially from a US perspective. We can't possibly handle a third war.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;30414893]To be honest, I always expected expected this to happen. The rebels are too unorganized and untrained to sustain a long term war with the Libyan army. The whole conflict is a mess, especially from a US perspective. We can't possibly handle a third war.[/QUOTE] this isnt the end of the war the rebels cant afford to lose as much as the libyan army, yes, but expecting every battle to be a victory for the rebels is unrealistic [editline]12th June 2011[/editline] think of if we looked at ww2 with that perspective boba we lost tons of battles and suffered setbacks during the battle of normandy and battle of bulge
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30415049]this isnt the end of the war the rebels cant afford to lose as much as the libyan army, yes, but expecting every battle to be a victory for the rebels is unrealistic [editline]12th June 2011[/editline] think of if we looked at ww2 with that perspective boba we lost tons of battles and suffered setbacks during the battle of normandy and battle of bulge[/QUOTE] I know, but it really doesn't seem like they have much of a chance of winning. Hopefully I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=The fox;30378514]I wonder exactly what will happen with the NATO forces should Gaddafi manage to defeat the rebels.[/QUOTE] They will most likely take care of it themselves and liberate the people for good this time.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;30415157]I know, but it really doesn't seem like they have much of a chance of winning. Hopefully I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] from what iv seen they have been making a few good gains over the last few weeks, and nato is becoming more and more involved and supportive as it goes on, not to mention gadhafi is suffering some very major setbacks(generals and officers defecting, his regime is beginning to collapse) i think the rebels have a very good chance of winning
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;30415157]I know, but it really doesn't seem like they have much of a chance of winning. Hopefully I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] This is the first real Gaddafi victory I've seen, with the majority being rebel victories. He can't hope to win when the majority of the Libyan Army is mercenaries at this point, as well as lacking any air support. He just doesn't have the firepower.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30414074]and im saying that since nato was so focused on control of the air that it became even more important for the soviets to deny them that air control, to have air superiority over their own territory[/quote] Marshal Ogarkov wrote in 1982 that "the air sphere in combat actions and operations has acquired an ever-growing role, which gives to modern operations a three-dimensional, deep character." However, this does not mean that the nature of the battlefield is one where the outcome is decided primarily through the situation in the air. Even up to the strategic level (not our Western definition of "strategic"), goals are achieved through combined arms operations. [quote]i think i might have misunderstood what you had said, i was thinking that you thought air superiority was trivial, or at least not nearly as important as it is[/QUOTE] Depends on what mindset you want me to adopt. Soviet? American? British? I believe that the U.S. military after 1991 has relied too much on air power at the expense of ground forces. There was an article on [i]Military Review[/i] written by an American divisional commander (Michael S. Tucker of the 2nd Infantry Division) who painted a grim picture for American troops to fight in conventional wars. At the same time, the layman feels that the US military can beat up any opponent through the heavy use of air power and "quick" power projection, so this is a little worrying...
Air superiority is of very high importance, but wars are by and large fought and won by boots on the ground. It was true of a 100 years ago, it's even more true now with wars becoming less conventional and more asymmetric.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.